This isn’t a final ruling of any sort, as far as I can tell, and I have some respect for the “mayors must obey the law, even if they disagree with it” argument, but still…
And my cousin and her partner had an appointment for next Thursday.
I’m too glum to come up with any creative profanity to express my extreme disappointment. Anyone?
I’m completely for SSM, but I’m for rule of law even more. I have to agree with this decision; they have to follow the law. Of course, they should work to change it.
Can’t people see that we’re denying people civil rights? Jeez, we can remove the commandments from the courthouse lobby but 10% of Americans can’t marry the person they love? What’s wrong with this picture?
They had to put a stop to it sooner or later. I’m glad it was as later as possible. Now, just need to succesfully prove that DOMA is illegal under the California constitution, and we can start right back up again.
Revtim: If civil disobedience isn’t a valid way to change a law, what is? I’m aware of the legal/legislative process, but the people in the congresses and on the benches are all swayed by public opinion. And public opinion is swayed by people taking a public stand and breaking the law.
Rosa Parks, a justifiably hallowed personage, broke the law quite knowingly and forced onto the public scene an injustice that had festered for three centuries. She did not stand up and move back to the `colored’ seats. She sat her ass down and stood up for human rights. Rosa Parks won. The SSM advocates, if they are to win, will find victory on the same path.
Revtim obviously disapproves of individuals taking it on themselves to break unjust laws. He thinks the Rule of Law should be more sacred than the innate morality of his own countrymen. Does anyone here agree with him?
Don’t put words in my mouth with that “Revtim thinks so-and-so” shit. I only said I agree with the decision, that it was obviously against state law and hence the ruling was correct. I have no problem with civil disobedience, and I hope SSM is legal as soon as possible.
Of course civil disobedience is an appropriate way to protest the law.
It is not clear how that card could or should be played now. Who wants to get arrested and loose office for an issue that has already been moved to the front of the national agenda.
These weddings served their purpose. Now it is time to do the hard unglamorous work of changing the law.
I think you’re reading a lot into Revtim’s statement there, Derleth. Civil disobedience is only meaningful if the protestor is willing to accept the consequences of breaking the law. One can salute the efforts of those practicing civil disobedience and still desire that the rule of law be upheld. The entire point of issuing SSM marriage laws was to get the matter in front of a court. As such, it was vital that the law be enforced. That the marriages were stopped is, really, trivial. Either the court will find in favor of SSM, and they can be performed from now on at our leisure, or they will find against them, and invalidate all of the SSMs performed to date, no matter how many were performed.
Nitpick: you should be clear that you are referring to California legislation, since there is also a federal DOMA and the California constitution clearly doesn’t have dick to say about its legality.
That’s the lovely thing about mayor Newsom’s action. Until now, gays who wanted to get married were just a wild and perhaps wicked abstraction to most of us, not real and of dubious import, like the possibility of life on Mars. Now when the question of gay marriage comes up there’s conclusive evidence that there are many positive and loving couples out there who are being actively screwed by these so-called defense of marriage acts. It’ll be much harder for the anti-gay faction to push these things when there’s concrete evidence of the lives being disrupted, free for all to read in the daily papers.
Again, you put a higher value on the law than morality. If you are happy with the decision because you agree with the law, that’s one thing, but to be happy with the decision and against the law is quite another. It is, in my eyes, perfectly dishonest to agree with a decision that upholds a law you disagree with.
Miller and Paul: Yes, the idea was to get it in front of the courts with public opinion well informed of the issue. But the weddings themselves mattered for the same reasons they have always mattered: A legal acceptance of a social bond. Anything that diminishes that goal is a defeat, but even defeats can lead to victory.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t “happy” with the decision, I simply agreed that that was the legal ruling that must have been made.
But, I admit I was thinking in terms of the ruling simply evaluating current law, and hadn’t considered the possibility the ruling changing the state law. If they could have overturned the state law with this ruling, then I certainly would have been much more for that. Was that actually possible?
Personally, I put absolutely no value whatsoever on morality. It’s too personal and subjective. That’s not to say that I don’t have a moral code, just that I don’t expect anyone to follow it. I do expect them to follow the legal code, or take the consequences. There are a number of laws I break on a regular basis because I don’t have a moral compunction about breaking them, but I don’t expect to be able to use my enlightened morality as an excuse to avoid punishment, should I be caught.
With this in mind, I feel that Gavin Newsom’s actions are entirely moral, but possibly illegal. The morality does not excuse the illegality. (If his actions were, indeed, illegal.) I think this is important, because 99% of the time, when someone thinks their personal morality trumps public legality, they are doing things I disagree with: prayer in public schools, censorship, 10 commandments in courtrooms, creationism in science classes, etc. Most of these things are forbidden under current law, and it is possible that SSM is also forbidden under current law. If it is, and I want the law to be respected on the other 99%, then it’s got to be respected in this one percent right here. And when we inevitably win this fight, it’s that same law that is going to keep SSM legal, even if some dickhead mayor somewhere decides his city isn’t going to perform or recognize them.
I don’t think this is a setback, because this isn’t a final ruling. It is still entirely possible that the judge will decide that Newsom was completely within his rights to order marriage licences. In that case, things pick right back up where they left off. Everyone who got married is still married, everyone who wants to get married can still get married. If the verdict goes against us, then, tragically, all of the weddings performed up to this point will be meaningless, and it doesn’t matter how soon or how late they got stopped. (“Meaningless,” of course, from a purely legal standpoint. They will still be very meaningful as personal commitments, and as symbols of the cause in general.)
And, I am not in any way, shape, or form a lawyer, but I think the fact that the courts let the weddings go on as long as they did is a good indicator of our chances. This isn’t a defeat, it’s just a delay.